The fact that our best available theories are still speculations misleads some people to believe that these ideas are not founded. Hence, some people suppose their uneducated opinion is just as bad, or as good, as the mainstream scientific hypothesis.
This trend is probably led by the way science has been taught, i e as a flawless method that offers facts about reality.
And by pre-scientific philosophy, still strong in our modern societies.

Evolution is "just a theory" the way Notre Dame is "just a pile of rocks", isn't it?

Jun 7 2013:
To clear things up, the term "just a theory" is irrational. A SCIENTIFIC theory is the final confirmation in science. We use laws to make theories, theories do not make laws. There is always a slight "if" but the title "theory" states that it has no record of the if and that it is unlikely it will ever happen. If science had a systematic hierarchy of titles, which it doesn't and that's what is nice about science in contrast to religion, theories would actually be HIGHER than laws.

Laws describe, theories present the information to claim better information. There is a LAW of gravity AND a theory of gravity. The law of gravity states that there is gravity, the theory EXPLAINS it. (I'm hoping the case sensitivity is hopefully getting this through to you.) The law of gravity is just that things attract things. Einstein's theory tells HOW.

the·o·ry noun ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē plural the·o·ries
Definition of THEORY:
the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

(Merriam Webster Dictionary)

If I still have not convinced you that evolution has seen great triumphs from hypothesis to theory, here is a list of things that are also theories to scale with evolution, and tell me if you dont believe in these:

Now, are you really not going to believe evolution alongside these. Denial of evolution is equally as bad as saying germs don't explain disease, nor do atoms explain radioactivity, special relativity, molecular bonds, or any other thing on the atomic scale.

May 30 2013:
When scientific principles are repeatedly demonstrated, we accept them as fact and build from there. The theory of evolution has been upheld and strengthened by all applicable and relevant branches of science. In the presence of overwhelming evidence and in the absence of contradictory information, this scientific theory must be perceived as fact. But why is it that we generally accept as uncontroversial the theory of relativity, electromagnetic theory or germ theory (in the transmission of disease), but cannot come to grips with the theory of evolution? One word: religion.

May 31 2013:
Positivist The really odd part of all this is that Evolution was never a big problem for Catholics, since because of their History , and Papal continuity, they do not need to rely on "The Bible" for Legitimacy, whereas , of course, most Protestants definitely do. It is a big crisis for them to discover, in modern times, that it is physically impossible to locate a "True copy' of the "Bible", since before printing presses, they were transcribed by hand, and there is literally not a single word in it that is unquestionably the "right " one, ie. the same in all versions. The more Dead Sea Scrolls discovered , the more intractable their problem becomes.

Jun 1 2013:
Church of England also accepts evolution. It is mainly evangelicals and koranic literalist muslims etc

They simply refuse to accept anything that clashes with a literal interpretation of their religious books. If the bible was true, then Yahweh is one of the all time great mass murderers and a donkey talked etc.

Jun 1 2013:
Catholics are no less vulnerable to the snare of “divine causality” than any other group who insists that a deity acts, or acted, and that the human race exists as a result. Evolutionary theory threatens any system that depends on a providential entity that would, at some point in the process, install a soul, immortal or otherwise. Darwin begs the question, “At what point in time did these ‘souls’ evolve?” Did early hominids like Lucy have one? Or did souls only become a feature of later pre-human species? Did Neanderthals have them, or were only Homo Sapiens granted this “divine spark,” as if one could even point to the “first” member of what we are pleased to call the human race! Further, if we were evolved from lower forms, there could not have been Adam’s original sin, the price for which was the “Plan of Salvation.” Nearly all Christians, Catholics or otherwise, can see the logical end here—evolution undermines faith.

May 24 2013:
Most people don't seem to understand what theory means in science, as opposed to colloquial use.

Not sure about your wording "still speculations". While not absolute and always subject to revision in the face of evidence, science has remarkable predictive and explanatory power. It is the best method we have to explain and understand a lot, and when applied gives us amazing technology.

I was never taught science was flawless or about facts. It is about increasing our knowledge and understanding based on evidence.

May 22 2013:
well you have to understand scientific language. Scientists use the term theory differently than do we in everyday life. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again and recieves a great degree pf scientific merit. Trust me if you review all the evidence supporting evolution you would have no doubt that the Theory has an enormous ocean of support behind it. I mean there is enough evidence for evolution that there is no other logical conclusion you can make while taking all the evidence in account.

May 22 2013:
Not everything about the theory of Evolution qualifies as logical, therefore it is not a logical conclusion, nor is it a valid conclusion, in fact it is not a conclusion. It is a theory which continues to undergo experimentation. Some predicted results are seen and some unexpected results are seen. In case of the latter the theory is altered to deal with the discovery (falsification) and new experiments are run until results always match predictions.

May 22 2013:
well are understanding of evolution changes in light of new evidence however there is an overwhelming consensus that evolution by the means of natural selection has occured and all animals are share a common ancestor. You think scientists ever expect to discover an ape fossil in the same sedimentary layer as a trilabyte?

May 22 2013:
clearly you disregarded my initial comment about Theory in science meaning something different. go do your research. Evolution is a theory just like Heliocentric theory. I mean the earth revolving around the sun is just a "theory" right?

May 22 2013:
Right. Everything is a theory according to Relativistic philosophy. Nothing can be known "for sure". I do not accept that epistemology. It is not a theory that the Earth orbits the Sun. It is just a theory that all life on Earth came from one common ancestor and has naturally selected beneficial mutations over eons of years to bring us to the vast species of our present day. I did not disregard your initial comment Keith, I oppose it.

May 22 2013:
What a renegade contradicting scientific truths. How can you oppose the fact scientists use the word theory differently than in other settings. Your entitled to your own belief but scientificly speaking your wrong and evolution is accepted with a great degree of certainty amongst the scientific community

May 22 2013:
I do not dispute that evolution is "accepted with a great degree of certainty amongst the scientific community." That is off the point here. Are you arguing that Evolution is not a theory (as defined by Science)? If so please state your belief so a simple mind like mine can understand it.

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

Is that what the bible really says? If it is a chronicle of the Jews from their escape from Egypt through the life of Christ, then it was about people and how they lived and died. Christians, Jews and Muslims are all believers in one God, the God of Abraham. So, you either accept this theology or not. There are other theologies; Africa, Asia... there are a number of ways that mankind has connected with his spiritual side or not. It is not wrong to believe as you believe. You may be chastised for criticism of others. It's just not playing nice.

They are not believers in the same god. Yahweh is not the same thing as the Trinity or Allah. They believe in different gods that did different things.

Same origins, but the Jewish religion just believes in Yahweh and nothing to do with Jesus or a triune god or Muhammads revelation. My understanding is the Jewish faith does not accept that god has anything to do with what is written in the new testament or Koran.

Most Christians seem to believe Jesus was also an incarnation or aspect of God. The Jewish religion and Muslim religions don't think Jesus is god or part of god

The muslim god got an angel to reveal more after JEsus, and JEsus wasn't a god but a prophet.

The later 2 kind of evolved from the first. But homo sapiens are no longer homo erectus. French is not the same as the Latin it evolved from. Christianity is not the same as the Judaism it evolved from.

The Jews, Christians and Muslims can not all be correct in their different beliefs about what god is and what he did and wants.

God can not be the Jewish god and the christian god and the Islamic god at this same time. It is one or none.

I hope I am mostly critiquing the beliefs and ideas being asserted not calling people names. Pointing out issues with particular arguments is not the same as directly criticising or attacking the person.

There are many theists far smarter and wiser than I in many areas. I just think the arguments I am aware and lack of evidence for a god don't stack up as below.

If I said I thought someone torturing their child or an adult for a day with fire was cruel, no issue right. But if I say a god who tortures its creations for eternity is cruel as per some doctrines, that's not nice?

While I think I was foolish being a Christian for so long, I understand how sticky it is and how hard it is to look at it objectively when you are in the middle of it.

Jun 13 2013:
Hi Obey,
I am not sure of your source, but all the "theist" I know seemed to agree that the God of Abraham was the God of Christians, Muslims and Jews. They did refer to Him with differing names as you noted and they did interpret His message differently. Paraphrasing here.
So, my real question is:
People have different beliefs then you, so what?
My belief that the moon is made of green cheese, how does that harm you?
More so, Why would you care?
You think I am wrong. OK. You say " I don't agree" That is all that is needed. You have no reason to justify your reasons to me.
I keep insisting on TED that I am right and you are wrong. I am being a bore and you don't have to respond.

Jun 14 2013:
The problem with beliefs are that they are false and ignorant. Belief in a green cheese moon is just as ignorant as religion. People care because we just want people to know truth. Atheists aren't evil ya know. Theists want to spread the word of god, we want to spread the word of truth.

Islam and Christianity claim their god is the god talked about in the Jewish bible.

However, the fact is that they can not be the same god if they are believed to have done and said different things. As far as the Jews are concerned Yahweh did not send Jesus or the angel Gabriel to dictate the Koran.

If you believe in a God that sent Jesus or revealed the Koran then you are believing in a god that did things that the Jews don't believe there god did. He can not be the same god.

Or simply if you believe JEsus is a god or part of a triune god, you believe in a very different god to the Jewish religion and Muslims.

This is supposed to be a debate. If you want to just state your opinion and not defend your beliefs that is your choice but you may be misunderstanding what a debate is.

If others want to challenge my ideas or others they are welcome too.

What is wrong with questioning people, or making arguments for or against ideas? No one is being burned at a stake for disagreeing.

If someone asserts that an invisible being is responsible for the diversity of life we see, what is wrong with a bit of debate on the topic, especially if they post their views in a debate?

If we are interested in the truth then we will test ideas and look for evidence.

Promoting false information and some aspects of religious beliefs and behaviours are potentially harmful.

I suggest that any religion that causes people to believe it is good to kill homosexuals or infidels is not benign.

Some believe Bob wrote just one book
You believe Bob wrote two books
Others believe Bob wrote 3 books

(I'll leave out the Mormons for simplicity)

It is impossible for the same person to write just one book, or just two books, or just three books.

If you believe in a Bob how wrote two books, you are believing in a different Bob to those who believe he wrote one or three books.

IF the Jews are right then God had nothing to do with Jesus, the new Testament and the Koran. So if you believe in a god that has something to do with JEsus its not the same god as the JEws believe in.

Jews believe in F for Father

Christians believe their god is the god of the Jewish bible but that he revealed more and JEsus is also an aspect of god. Lets call him FSH

Muslims don't think Jesus is part of God. A god that includes JEsus is not the same as a god that doesn't. They also believe god revealed more stuff. LEts call him F+

Jun 14 2013:
Brandon,
What truth?
Who said that beliefs are false and ignorant?
I have never said that Atheist were evil.

As far as I know, theist believe in God and Atheist believe there is no God. Both say they are spreading the word of truth. I say good. Your telling the truth, they are telling the truth, everybody is telling the truth.
Who am I to disagree with either group. They are both telling the truth.
I don't have to be convinced because I don't care.

Jun 14 2013:
Mike, I'm aware. It is just quite annoying to me that most christians feel it is their duty to persuade others into accepting Jesus and that atheists are the spawn of evil instead of just keeping it to themselves. I am just retaliating to the vast majority of religions that feel this to be their duty. I'm sorry if I offend you, in fact it's humble of you to disregard persuasion and not taking part in it.

Jun 14 2013:
Some define atheism as not having a belief in gods and goddesses

Not just the monotheistic gods.

Basically being a non theist.

This is not same as believing or asserting to know there are no gods or goddesses.

I personally believe there is no compelling evidence for any god or goddesses concept worthy of the name, so I don't believe in them the same way I don't believe in invisible dragons. But I don't claim to know they do not exist.

Jun 9 2013:
To be honest, - no offense and don't take it personal, I do believe in the freedom of belief - EVOLUTION Theory is the most illogic and irrational theory I've ever heared of! If you visit my profile you'll notice that I'm muslim and you'll probably judge me on that, but I'm also an engeneer and I DO think scientifically. So, how on earth can a chimp evolve to be a man ?

why did they stop evolving? we still see them, right !

Can we assume that each creature that has 98% DNA similarity with another creature has evolved from that second creature ?

If we assume that evolution theory is true, where did the first chimp came from? how did it start in the first place ?!!!

I'm ready to change my belief if anyone could convince me and proved me Evolution is RIGHT !

Jun 9 2013:
my dear friend you have the freedom of belief :-) just listen to what i know about evolution nd decide for yourself, what you find more closer to truth.

First of all you are incorrect in stating that man has evolved from chimp. We share same ancestors with chimpanzees, rhesus monkey, gorillas, orangutans and the chimpanzees. Actually we share same ancestory with all other living beings, however we are closer in relation to chimp.

yes they are still evolving, just like every other organism in this world, however there life span is of about 60 years , so it would take thousands of generations to observe evolution in them by a human being (with life span of around 80 years). However living beings like moths have an age span of week or two nd are easier to observe for evolution. And so happened in london. Pre industrial london had whiter barks, so mostly one could observe only light colored peppered moth. Dark colored peppered moth were born, but they were an easy catch for the birds. However industrial population caused bark to darken by pollution , nd the same most hunted dark moth, could not be seen at all nd the light colored moth became very rare.
Wiki link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Evolution is much more complex,however there are some basic things-
1. There is limited food and space
2. The living beings divide at an exponential rate
3. In each generation there is some genetical change from previous generations , which can be transmitted to the next one
4. genetical changes or mutations can be good or bad,depending upon the environment
5. if it is excellent of the survival ,it becomes the majority, nd viola, you have your evolution.
6. environment is ever changing nd mutations always occur, so evolution never stops
7. however its so slow,that to an individual of the species its non existant

Jun 10 2013:
There are few things I like more then a person being ready to change their mind using reason and facts.
I do however feel that my input isn't needed here right now since Sooshrut put it so eloquently.

Jun 10 2013:
Re (below): "You're a pantheist then. But still cite from the Christian scriptures, I find this very contradicting as in one version God is in the form of man (or the other way around) and in the other God is everything, everywhere, formless.
Or do you simply enjoy the rhetoric of those scriptures?"

I don't see why we need to put ourselves or each other into nicely labeled "bins". I am simply trying to understand why Bible has been a bestseller for 2000 years. What's the meaning of all this? And I do find some interesting things there.

It seems to me that the main idea of the New Testament is to remove the "curtain" separating humans from God. We are not supposed to worship Jesus as a man, but as a "spirit". And the spirit of God is supposed to "dwell" in us as it did in Jesus. When we start to analyze these things with words, the logic breaks down and things seem to contradict each other. E.g. worshiping Jesus as a man is idolatry. Saying that "everything is moved by the Holy Spirit" is pantheism. And looking into the sky in search for a "Father who art in heaven" makes no sense either. All analysis comes down to some sort of "chicken-and-egg" circular argument. A lot of people reject the whole thing for that reason, but their own ideas about "universe from nothing" and what not have same contradictions. Contradictions don't mean that ideas are useless.

The only way for me to understand all these opposites - body (or matter in general) and spirit, yin and yang, as one - "self". I came to this idea some time ago and then, by accident, have read a few quotes from Alan Watts. I love the way he explains these things - have you watched the video in my post below? It's impossible to tell what comes first because opposites grow together from "self", like the flower in the video or like a tree from the mustard seed. In this context, the name of God (I am) or "self" makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure if that's Christianity, pantheism, or Buddhism.

Perhaps, you have a problem with evolution BECAUSE you are an engineer. Engineers tend to put things together from parts. But that's not how living things are put together. They GROW. I've recently watched this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78hrdZutsI . It explains the difference in the mindset between "creating" something as an engineer and something growing from within.

Human life is too short to see an evolutionary change. These changes take multiple generations. We are looking but at a snapshot picture of the universe. People live less than 100 years which is nothing compared to billions of years that the universe, possibly, exists. This is why we don't see species evolving in front of our eyes. But we do know of species that are no more (dinosaurs, mammoths, etc.)

Where did the first chimp come from? Perhaps, from a creature that was similar to a chimp, but, perhaps, more primitive. And the first multi-cell organism came from a single-cell organism or organisms, and a single-cell organisms, perhaps, combined from some molecules that had carbon, water, and other stuff found on Earth in great abundance.

You may say that the probability of non-living molecules combining into a living molecule that is capable of reproduction is very, very, very small - almost non-existent. But don't forget that there are billions upon billions upon billions of these molecules on Earth. So, the probability of, at least one molecule self-creating at right conditions, may be very large.

And if you consider that there are billions upon billions upon billions of galaxies and stars in the universe, it becomes almost certainty that there's got to be, at least one planet at the right distance from the star, with the right elements and the right conditions for life to appear. The fact that we are living on such planet is no more surprising than the fact that you were born from your own mother and not from any of the billions of other women.

Jun 10 2013:
Ben, when you say "I am", what do you mean by "I" and what do you mean by "am"? It's impossible to define this basic phrase which we use every day. And, you might know that "I am" is the name of God (Exodus 3:14). As we reflect on it, trying to understand its meaning, we define who we are, how we came to be, and how we relate to everything else.

"You don't look out there for God, something in the sky, you look in you." -- Alan Watts.

Jun 10 2013:
Assuming a generic Deistic type god, if it is possible for such a thing to exist (we don't know) as conveniently defined as immaterial outside time and space, virtually non existent and unverifiable by us, this magical being or billions of universe creators existing in some other dimension are compatible with evolution. In fact evolution and science in general has little to say about any magical beings.

I tend to disagree however, about there being nothing wrong with believing life and the universe is due to the will of some hypothetical magical being. I have no issue with people having the freedom to believe in any gods or goddess or other dimensional speculations they want, as long as they don't force this and related dogmas on other people or harm others.

I just suggest there is no good reason or evidence to believe that any gods or goddesses exist, let alone ones capable of creating universes. Ignorance is not a good reason to suppose a god exists. Conflicting religious writings, conflicting and subjective personal insights and so called revelations are not a good reason. Not being able to disprove the existence of something that is probably just a human conceptual construct and defined as being outside the reality we can test is not a good reason.

I don't know how many different god and goddess or related supernatural type beliefs there have been. Probably millions once you get into the details. But I guess most of them must be wrong. At best one is correct, or there may be something more but none have come close. Just why give credence to any without sound reason or evidence. Chance are if you have a particular god belief you are wrong and no way to tell if one revelation is more reliable than another when it comes down to what can not be verified or tested.

So much circular thinking, fallacies, and reliance on intuitive subjective personal insights, so little reason to believe other than the benefits unrelated to the actual whether it is true.

Jun 10 2013:
Obey, when we view God as something external to ourselves, the idea makes no sense whatsoever. Existence of God is not a scientific fact. Belief in God to me is simply a way of looking at the world. There are other ways. None are "right".

To me, God is not "out there". God is inside me and inside every other human, thing, or process. God is the principle driving the growth of the universe and putting all these "random" events together into powerful things like galaxies, hurricanes, viral epidemics, and evolution.

Re: "I have no issue with people having the freedom to believe in any gods or goddess or other dimensional speculations they want, as long as they don't force this and related dogmas on other people or harm others." I support this idea.

You're a pantheist then. But still cite from the Christian scriptures, I find this very contradicting as in one version God is in the form of man (or the other way around) and in the other God is everything, everywhere, formless.

I agree none are right as far as we know. That is why I don't believe in anything worthy of the name god.

If I understand correctly your definition of god is more a principle or driving force rather than a person or mind. I'm not sure exactly what you mean to be honest or how we could distinguish it from natural processes and perceiving patterns and change.

I'm not sure there is any absolute or specific meaning to hurricanes, galaxies, other patterns or change in general.

I get the sense that "god" is just a sense of awe and wonder at the universe for some people. Not sure if your views are a bit similar to this.

Jun 10 2013:
I don't think, God can be "defined". Perhaps, "understood", but not in a sense of "analyzed" - broken down into parts like some machine, but in a sense we understand how a flower grows or what happens when a water droplet falls onto a water surface. We just perceive those things and they, kind of, "make sense", although it's impossible to put it into words what happens first and what happens next and what causes what - the droplet causes ripples or the ripples cause a new droplet. And what really happens is not what we see:

Jun 10 2013:
i didn't want to assume. many people speak of god as in a non-descript deity, rather than specifically the god of the bible. i think this is actually where you fall, since you talk about god as being a way of looking at the world, rather than an actual figure who created the world and everything on it as the god of the bible did.

Jun 10 2013:
Well, again, to you, there is "the god of the bible" and there is some other "deity" which is not "the god of the bible". I think, "the god of the bible" is that deity. I know, it's hard to understand how the same deity can be seen as "loving and forgiving" in one passage and pouring sulfur onto cities, drowning the whole world, and ordering genocide in others. So I cannot understand how the same person can be a criminal and a loving father at the same time. It makes no sense, but that's the point.

One cannot create a "figure" or an image and say "that's God". That's idolatry.

Jun 11 2013:
i can understand how a man can be a criminal and a loving father at the same time, his circle is limited to his family, similarly to the way people can love their countrymen while killing people of another country. when you're talking about a god who is supposed to love all, it doesn't work though. if he doesn't know that group punishment is wrong then he's not a god.

Jun 11 2013:
Yes. Judging God and dictating to God what he is supposed or not supposed to do and what is right or wrong (otherwise he is not God or does not exist) is fairly common. I think, it comes from inflated self-confidence (a.k.a. pride). We know better than God, don't we? (See Genesis 3 regarding the origins of this attitude.) We treat each other likewise and then wonder why people go to wars with us.

But you see how contemplating the bible lead to some interesting conclusions about ourselves. You just pointed out that our attitude towards people and things that we identify with is different from our attitude to people and things that we do not associate with ourselves. It has to do with our sense of "self". When we erase this invisible line between "me" and the rest of the world, tear down this curtain, the morals become self-consistent - we treat the world the way we treat ourselves and we cannot hurt the world without hurting ourselves.

I can only repeat what I said: what we say about God we say about ourselves. It's like talking to the mirror. It reveals our own nature. While God simply remains "I am who I am".

Jun 10 2013:
I don't see it's a matter of evolving from a chimp... at all
what's not convincing to me, how much time it takes for one cell to mutate. this is only one cell, how about the human brain that is full of billions of cells, functioning in an incredible way...

if I suppose the evolution is correct... just for a monkey to become a rational human being...

now what is to consider?, is it the time consumed to evolve only one cell or the "luck" to find this wonderful combination of mutations?

to me, I am convinced nothing comes from no where, though it's been a while for humans to live on planet earth, I don't think I have ever heard of an evolution for a monkey but on youtube same as aliens

I don't know, I am not convinced...
the best documentary I have ever watched is "http://youtu.be/ioONhpIJ-NY"
more possibilities, more options... this where we live, no body knows the truth... I think

Jun 10 2013:
Imagine you could go back in time. Go back 10,000 years and your DNA and physical attributes will be similar to your ancestors. So similar you could reproduce with them.

Go back 100,000 years and there may be more differences but perhaps still able to reproduce.

Go back far enough and the differences will be such that you may not be able to reproduce with your ancestor population.

Parts of the ancestor species populations didn't suddenly change into a different species. Its change over time.

And not all groups of the ancestor species followed the same path. Some stayed more in the trees. Our ancestors may have spent more time on the ground, where standing and walking on two limbs may have been beneficial. While we can stand upright better than other primates our knees and joints are not perfectly adapted to upright posture. Back issues, worn joints, etc.

On the development of the human brain, do you accept we are not the only animals with brains. Do you accept that chimps have more similar brain capabilities to humans than other species.
Can you see the similarities and development mapped out in the tree of life science points out.

Do you understand how via DNA and genes multi-cellular life could adapt and change via natural and other selection drivers.

Do you notice how even humans vary by region. Darker skin with more sun and lighter skin in lower sun areas, except for recent migrations.

It hasn't been a straight line of one species population changing over time to one homogeneous population to another to another. Some groups have branched of in one direction and changed a lot and others less so.

Some fishlike creatures stayed in the sea, others may have been more amphibious.You can see the remenants of this progression in the species that have not changed that much. We still have fish and reptiles. We still have single cell DNA based life, and even RNA based viruses.

For me the evolution of the animals is not hard to grasp. Other parts are harder.

Can I ask you this, are you looking for the truth or are you sure that no one has any truth to offer?

Because if you're not looking I'm not going to try to convince you. If you are looking for truth I can direct you to it but you'll have to do some reading and studying on the matter, it will take some days of study to understand coming from your standpoint.

Jun 10 2013:
Some fishlike creatures stayed in the sea, others may have been more amphibious and certain traits or genes would have improved their ability to survive and reproduce over time. These genes and traits eg fins that are slightly more suited for pushing along the beach increase in frequency. Gradually more and more changes in gene frequency over time see a clear split between the fish in the ocean and the ones that found a niche living amphibiously.

Also even though there are white Americans that descended from Europeans, there are still Europeans.

Jun 10 2013:
Its a bit sad when so many who say they oppose evolution really don't have a reasonable understanding of the actual theory and observations it explains.

I guess our education systems let us down. But some of it is our own responsibility. I guess some prefer to argue strawmen.

I'm not a biologist so I defer to any with more expertise to correct me, but my understanding on a few of these misconceptions:

As stated so many times evolution is not claiming humans evolved from chimps, rather we share a common ancestor some millions of years ago, that is neither chimp or homo sapiens.

Its false to assume evolution is all about the development of humans.

A particular species may spread out, over time different groups may undergo more change than others up to the point they can no longer breed with others sharing a common ancestor species.

The lack of a basic understanding how the primates share a common ancestor group, back further mammals share a common ancestor, back further we share a common ancestor with all vertebrates, and ultimately with all DNA based life. Look at all the basic similarities of vertebrates.Skeletons,four limbs, sexual reproduction, respiration, camera eyes all from fish-like ancestors. You can also see a progression of brain type. Reptilian, mammalian, and the neo cortex.

Mohamed, my understanding is there are a few mechanisms behind evolution that is basically about changes in gene frequency. A mutation may occur in the genes of a sperm or egg. Not every cell in the body needs to mutate. Another factor is just changes in frequency unrelated to mutation. Taller individuals in a species in one region may survive more often to reproduce because they can reach more fruit, so the population becomes taller, until further height becomes a liability, such not being so agile, or requiring more energy to survive etc. In a dense forest smaller individuals may do better.

There are plenty of websites that explain evolution. Just avoid the religious

Jun 10 2013:
I keep seeing people talking about evolving from chimps, really, if you are not going to put in the effort to understand the evolutionary process, and just jump to the same blatantly wrong assumption that has followed Darwin's "Origin", then why even waste your time on this talk? Isee this as yet another attempt to dissuade people from using evolution as what it is, a scientific theory that should be taught because it is correct. Bringing Allah, God, Or the flying pickle-weasel into this discussion will only degrade it. I am beginning to see why Dawkins refuses to debate with religious zealots, you could show them the sky is blue and they would refute it in the name of their God.

“But evolution is only a theory!”, which is true, it is a theory, it’s good that they say that, I think, it gives you hope, doesn't it, that - that maybe they feel the same way about the theory of gravity… and they might just float the f*** away.

May 30 2013:
If you question whether what follows is on point, read it! "It challenges as prideful an anthropocentric world-view." That is, the attitude embraced by modern and post-modern practitioners of Science. "

The Essay on Man is a philosophical poem, written in heroic couplets and published between 1732 and 1734. Pope intended this poem to be the centrepiece of a proposed system of ethics that was to be put forth in poetic form. It was a piece of work that Pope intended to make into a larger work; however, he did not live to complete it. The poem is an attempt to "vindicate the ways of God to Man," It challenges as prideful an anthropocentric world-view.

From: An Essay on Man by Alexander Pope.

III. Heaven from all creatures hides the book of Fate,
All but the page prescribed, their present state:
From brutes what men, from men what spirits know:
Or who could suffer being here below?
The lamb thy riot dooms to bleed to-day,
Had he thy reason, would he skip and play?
Pleased to the last, he crops the flowery food,
And licks the hand just raised to shed his blood.
Oh, blindness to the future! kindly given,
That each may fill the circle, marked by Heaven:
Who sees with equal eye, as God of all,
A hero perish, or a sparrow fall,
Atoms or systems into ruin hurled,
And now a bubble burst, and now a world.
Hope humbly, then; with trembling pinions soar;
Wait the great teacher Death; and God adore.
What future bliss, He gives not thee to know,
But gives that hope to be thy blessing now.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
Man never is, but always to be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

May 30 2013:
And thank you for appreciating it. Real Literature can do a lot to make these debates more interesting. Sometimes they can be either unbearable or unreadable or both. So, if you would, take a cue from Alexander Pope.

If you enjoy reading great literature. Try adding great literature to TED conversations.